In posts 1 and 2 we explored six communication styles and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each:

Tells

Sells

Tests

Consults

Joins

Delegates

So how does all this relate to coaching and where would we place coaching on the spectrum. Some argue that coaching is all about empowering others and so must sit ‘right of centre’ towards delegation. However, we can also see that perhaps coaching doesn’t belong to this range of alternatives at all as it almost represents a philosophy of communication rather than a style. In many ways coaching is a means of adopting the advantages of each of the other styles whilst minimizing the disadvantages.

Placing coaching on the spectrum

Good coaches don’t fear loss of control as they know that the people they coach will have formulated their plans and ideas in their presence. Thus the coach has the ability to warn against a certain course of action if it is against the rules or likely to cause problems. Also, we’ve seen that coaching is an effective way for managers to build trust in their teams and so they can resort to Tell when the situation demands it without worrying about the team being uncooperative or becoming disillusioned.

So far we have considered the merits of various communication styles in a general context. What about when we need to communicate with another to help them develop?

It seems that Tell is dominant here and perhaps this is because most of us were conditioned to learn in this way at school. We would sit in rows of desks while the teacher would tell us what we needed to do and how to do it and lessons would consist of being told what we needed to know. But this doesn’t always work. Try explaining to someone how to do up a tie or lace a training shoe without showing them – it’s almost impossible. To do so requires us firstly to understand exactly the process that needs to be done and then to find the language to convey that process to another person in a way they can understand.

The modern world of work is changing so fast that we can no longer be certain that the ways and methods we used to become successful will be valid for the next generation. Solving today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions is a big risk.

Furthermore, people don’t retain a great deal of learning when they have only ever been told what to do. How many managers have you heard yelling, “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times!”, or “How many times do I have to tell you?”

Coaching presents a way of dealing with these problems as it is concerned with drawing our rather than putting in and thus enables people to learn in their own way and at their own speed. In this way we get learning and development that sticks in the same way as learning to swim or to ride a bicycle.

There’s an old Chinese proverb which, roughly translated, states:

“Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand”

We cannot prove human nature; we can only form our own view. One of the most accessible pieces of theory on this point was provided by Douglas McGregor when he described the idea that managers view their people in two main categories. These he labelled Theory X and Theory Y.

Theory X

People are lazy and dislike work

People must be coerced or threatened with punishment

People avoid responsibility

People are motivated mainly by money

Theory Y

Work is a natural part of life

People will exercise self direction

People accept responsibility under the right conditions

People are motivated by achievement, recognition, etc.

These two theories are really the extreme ends of the same spectrum and in truth, most of us would admit to feeling a mixture of these views about some people some of the time. It is important to recognize that neither of the views can be proven as right or wrong in absolute terms; they are simply beliefs about human nature based on experience. Our starting point as coaches therefore needs to be which set of views is more useful. Probably Theory Y. It seems to me that a coach is likely to be more helpful if his or her starting point is to believe that the coachee starts with the potential to achieve his or her aims. It is then the job of the coach is to play a part in realizing that potential.

Coaching takes a positive view of human nature and the capabilities of people and as such it is more closely aligned with Theory Y. In short, the best coaches have a simple philosophy:

“The brain with the problem, is the one with the solution”

and they work on this basis in the certain belief that people have vast reserves of potential which are rarely used and that the coach’s job is to draw it out.

This is important because our thoughts and feelings about people at work manifest in our behaviour whether we realism it or not. Approach your people as if Theory X is true and they’ll respond in kind and prove you right. The same holds true for Theory Y. Putting this into action requires a philosophy of coaching which recognizes that people are not empty vessels into which knowledge and skills must be poured, rather they are seedlings who require careful nurturing and support.

Only then can we go on to develop an approach to coaching that is entirely in keeping with these ideas.

Coaching in organizations is broadly similar to say, coaching in sport in that the primary concern is to perform better and develop people’s abilities.

Coaching can be interpreted in different ways and we need to be aware that some views of coaching may actually be confusing.

Coaching shares many characteristics with teaching, counselling, and training etc. but has some subtle yet important differences.

Effective coaching allows people to develop their sense of awareness so that they begin to see their problems and concerns with greater clarity.

This presents a platform on which the coaching practitioner can build in order to develop a deeper understanding and practical skills. Over time they can become excellent coaches and achieve great things both for the people whom they coach and for themselves.

I’ve been running coaching skills for managers courses for more than 10 years and I fervently believe that managers can (and must) provide coaching for their staff.

Others argue that whilst managers may provide an experience akin to coaching, it is no substitute for the ‘real’ coaching supplied by external suppliers.

This argument may be impossible to resolve and it’s actually quite possible to live with both points of view, I first wrote the following article as part of my MSC dissertation. I repeat it here to help you shape your own ideas which will be useful if you’re considering introducing coaching in your organisation.

Let’s consider firstly the skills, knowledge and attitudes that are needed.

It is clear that coaching is a popular development intervention and, given its close relationship to other interventions, notably mentoring, one which organisations ought readily to be able to incorporate in their training and development strategies. But what are the exact skills required to be able to coach well and are these skills ones which can be learned by line managers or must organisations ‘buy’ the requisite skills by recruiting external coaches?

There appears to be no specific statement of the requisite knowledge, skills and competencies in the coaching literature, but a number of writers have sought to identify what it is that makes successful coaches effective. For example, a group of part time students were asked to identify the characteristics of an effective coach; managers who have inspired them to be effective in their jobs.

Their answers suggest that the effective coach is the manager who:

Treats each individual as a person in their own right, uniquely different from other employees with whom he or she deals at work

Sets a good example, is an appropriate role model

Encourages and supports people, especially when things are not going well

Gives praise when it is due, but deals with poor performance in a straightforward and understanding manner

Performs his or her own job conscientiously and competently

Does not ‘pull rank’ or rely on power derived from the hierarchy

Keeps people well informed

Takes ‘time out’ from their own duties to provide regular coaching input

Whilst these points provide a useful checklist of what it takes to be an effective coach, they do not provide a sense of the skills and abilities which would need to be developed.

In Coaching for Performance, John Whitmore provides a summary of the qualities the ideal coach would possess:

Patience

Detached

Supportive

Interested

Good Listener

Perceptive

Aware

Self aware

Attentive

Retentive

Technical expertise

Knowledge

Experience

Credibility

Authoritative

Whitmore claims to be less in agreement with the last five itemsn and challenges whether a coach needs to have experience or technical knowledge in the area in which he or she is coaching. He goes on to state that the answer to that question is no, providing the coach is truly acting as the detached awareness raiser with an absolute belief in the potential of the coachee and the value of self responsibility.

Cunningham (1998) agrees and explains that he has coached managers in areas such as finance or information technology where he has no particular expertise. Instead he suggests that the key is to ask pertinent questions and to listen carefully in order to help managers set sensible learning goals and to assist them in finding the resources required to meet those goals.

Others take a different view and Bentley (1995) for example states emphatically that the coach must be able to ‘model’ what he or she requires the coachee to do. ‘The whole coaching approach is for someone who is trusted, with knowledge and experience to help someone less experienced but with skills and talent, to develop.’

However others speculate whether the issue of the coach’s expertise is dependent on whether the coaching is directive or non directive.

According to Hyatt (1999), non directive coaches help the coachee explore a situation, identify some options and select a way forward, the coachee takes full ownership of the solution and the actions required. Directive coaching has its place, but is limited by the knowledge of the coach and the responsibility for the solution is seldom successfully transferred to the coachee.

It is my view that any notion of directive coaching moves too far towards instruction and teaching type interventions which are to be avoided for the effect of coaching alone to be evaluated. Therefore the assumption is made that the effective coach does not necessarily have to have expertise in the area being coached. Rather, he or she will use advanced questioning skills to help the coachee develop their own, unique insight. Put more crudely, the effective coach takes the positive philosophical stance that ‘the brain that has the problem is the brain with the solution’.

Throughout the literature the pervading paradigm is that coaching is undertaken by ‘managers’ to ‘staff’. Thus it is anchored to the hierarchy and largely assumes a superior/subordinate relationship. However, it is questionable as to whether this situation is one likely to bring about the greatest results.

‘Can a manager be a coach at all?’ asks Whitmore (1996). He goes on to answer that yes, a manager can, but coaching demands the highest qualities of any manager: empathy, integrity and detachment, as well as a willingness to adopt a fundamentally different approach to staff.

However he also goes on to suggest that there are circumstances in which bringing in a highly skilled independent coach or facilitator will have several advantages.

Uncertainty about trust and confidentiality and an unwillingness to tackle issues that may concern performance or tenure make it difficult for very senior staff to turn to colleagues for help.

Pay (1995) agrees that coaching activity, when it is done, is undertaken by line managers but that such activity is at best patchy and at worst, hardly evident at all.

He suggests that many managers pay only lip service to it, while others openly resist it. Furthermore, he states that often the only managers who actively undertake staff coaching are newly appointed managers (until they realise they do not earn points for it) and ‘plateaued managers’

Whilst this view is perhaps unduly harsh, it can be seen that the trend towards leaner, performance-driven organisations does seem to make it increasingly difficult for managers to coach and may actually discourage them from doing so.

Pay also draws attention to the fact that a manager’s capability to coach ought to be considered at the same time as his or her willingness.

‘The behavioural style and values of some managers also makes them ‘natural coaches’ while others seem not to be at all suited to a coaching role. The difference in results they produce suggests that while some managers should coach, others should actually be discouraged from doing so.’

Looking back on this article, it’s clear that the argument has moved on but that the principles remain the same.

If a member of staff were to be coached by a manager and an external coach, they would undertake a quite different experience. I would expect the external coaching to be deeper, more impactful and likely more truthful given that the external coach is free from any involvement in the situations being discussed.

However anything is better than nothing and I have seen many mangers achieve great results through the careful application of some basic coaching techniques. Their staff also report on preferring to be managed this way. The skills and qualities needed for effective coaching can be developed and modelled by any manager and should not been seen as the preserve of external suppliers only.